Labo, Jr. vs COMELEC, [176 SCRA 1; GR 86564, August 1,1989] (Municipal Corporation, Qualification, 2ndHighest Number of Votes)Facts: Petitioner and Respondent were candidates forthe officeof the Mayor of Baguio City during Elections. Having garnered the highest number of votes, Petitioner was elected and proclaimed winner while Respondent garnered the second highest number of votes. Subsequently Respondent filed a petition forquo warrantocontesting the election of the Petitioner on the ground that the latter is a naturalized Australian citizen and was divested of his Philippine citizenship having sworn allegiance to the Queen of Australia. Petitioner opposes to the contrary.Section 42 of the Local Government Code provides for the qualifications that an elective official must be a citizen of the Philippines.From the evidence adduced, it was found out that citizenship requirements were not possessed by the petitioner during elections. He was disqualified from running as mayor and, although elected, is not now qualified to serve as such.Issue: WON private respondent, having garnered the 2ndhighest number of votes, can replace the petitioner as mayor.Held: No. The simple reason is that he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people ofBaguio City.The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office.Note:Dual citizenship is not a bar in running for elections, dual allegiance is.Mere repatriation is not enough to run for elections.A written certification of anoath of allegianceto the Philippines must be attached together with the COC.1.Repatriation Is Recovery of Original CitizenshipFirst,repatriation is simply the recovery oforiginalcitizenship.Under Section 1 of RA 2630, a person who ha[s] lost his citizenship may reacquire it by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Valles vs. COMELECG.R. No. 137000, Aug. 9, 2000

Principle of jus sanguinisHow PhilippinecitizenshipisacquiredEffect of filingcertificate ofcandidacy: express renunciation of othercitizenship

FACTS:

Rosalind Ybasco Lopezwas bornon May 16, 1934 in Australia to aFilipinofather and anAustralianmother. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle inthe Philippines, where she later married a Filipino and has since then participated in the electoral process not only as avoterbut as a candidate, as well. In the May 1998elections, she ranfor governorbut Valles filed apetitionfor her disqualification as candidate on the ground that she is anAustralian.

ISSUE:Whether or not Rosalind is anAustralianor a Filipino

HELD:

ThePhilippine lawoncitizenshipadheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality orcitizenshipof the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality orcitizenshipon the basis of place of birth.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopezwas borna year before the 1935Constitutiontook intoeffect andat that time, what served as theConstitutionofthe Philippineswere the principal organic acts by which theUnited Statesgoverned the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of Aug. 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law.

Under both organic acts, all inhabitants ofthe Philippineswho were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondents father, Telesforo Ybasco,was bornon Jan. 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte.... Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and theJonesLaw, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the laws in force at the time of her birth, Telesforos daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen ofthe Philippines.

The signing into law of the 1935 PhilippineConstitutionhas established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippinecitizenship, xxx

So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which conferscitizenshipby virtue of blood relationship, was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippinecitizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claimAustraliancitizenshipresulting to her possession of dualcitizenship.

FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC (1996)G.R. No. 120295, June 28 1996, 257 SCRA 727

FACTS:Juan G. Frivaldo ranfor Governorof Sorsogon again and won. Raul R. Lee questioned hiscitizenship. He then petitioned for repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 and was able to take his oath ofallegianceas a Philippine citizen.

However, on the day that he got hiscitizenship, the Court had already ruled based on his previous attempts to run asgovernorand acquirecitizenship, and had proclaimed Lee, who got the second highest number of votes, as the newly electGovernorof Sorsogon.

ISSUE:Whether or not Frivaldos repatriation was valid.

HELD:The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the curative nature of Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation retroacted tothe dateof the filing of his application to runfor governor. The steps to reacquire PhilippineCitizenshipby repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 are: (1) filing the application; (2) action by the committee; and (3) taking of the oath ofallegianceif the application is approved. It is only upon taking the oath ofallegiancethat theapplicantis deemed ipso jureto havereacquired Philippinecitizenship. If the decree had intended the oath taking to retroact tothe dateof the filing of the application, then it should not have explicitly provided otherwise. He is therefore qualified to be proclaimedgovernorof Sorsogon.

Torayno v. COMELECG.R. NO. 137329 (August 9, 2000)FACTS:This case involves a petition for quo warranto filed against the respondent on the ground that he was not able to fulfill the requirement of residency of 1-yr in Cagayan de Oro City when he ran for mayor. Respondent previously served as governor of Misamis Oriental for 3 consecutive terms before he registered as a voter in Cagayan de Oro City and subsequently ran for mayor.

HELD:Respondent was able to fulfill the residency requirement needed for him to qualify as a mayoralty candidate. He bought a house in Cagayan de Oro City in 1973. He actually resided there before he registered as a voter in that city in 1997.

Coquilla vs COMELEC [385 SCRA 607; GR 151914, September 17,2002] (Municipal Corporation, Qualifications Residence)

Facts: Petitioner Coquilla was born of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar, where he grew up and resided.In 1965, he joined the US Navy and subsequently naturalized as a US citizen.On October 15, 1998, petitioner came to the Philippines and took out a residence certificate, albeit continued making several trips to the US.On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines subsequently after his application for repatriation was approved.On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter of Butunga, Oras, Eastern Samar.On February 27, 2001, he filed his COC stating therein that he has been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years.On March 5, 2001, respondent incumbent mayor of Oras who was running for re-election, sought the cancellation of petitioners COC on the ground that the latter had resided in Oras for only about 6 months since when he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.On May 14, 2001, petitioner garnered the highest number of votes and was subsequently proclaimed mayor of Oras.Issue: WON petitioner satisfied the residency requirement for the position of mayor.

Held: No. Par. 39, Chapter 1, Title 2 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) provides that an elective official must be a resident therein (barangay, municipality, city or province) for at least 1 year immediately preceeding the day of the electionThe term residence is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or legal residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the childs parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (domicile of choice).In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a US citizen after enlisting in the US Navy in 1965. From then on and until November 10, 2000, when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, he was an alien.

COQUILLA VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 151914, 31 July 2002 [Citizenship; Reacquisition]

FACTS:Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he was subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen after joining the US Navy. In 1998, he came to the Philippines and took out a residence certificate, although he continued making several trips to theUnited States.

Coquilla eventually applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 8171 which was approved. On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.

On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter of Butunga, Oras, Eastern Samar which wasapproved in2001. On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy stating that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years.

Incumbent mayor Alvarez, who was running for re-election sought to cancel Coquillas certificate of candidacy on the ground that his statement as to the two year residency in Oras was a material misrepresentation as he only resided therein for 6 months after his oath as a citizen.

Before the COMELEC could render a decision, elections commenced and Coquilla was proclaimed the winner. On July 19, 2001, COMELEC granted Alvarez petition and ordered the cancellation of petitioners certificate of candidacy.

ISSUE:Whether or not Coquilla had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar at least on year before the elections held on May 14, 2001 as what he represented in his COC.

RULING:No.The statement in petitioners certificate of candidacy that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for two years at the time he filed such certificate is not true. The question is whether the COMELEC was justified in ordering the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for this reason. Petitioner made a false representation of a material fact in his certificate of candidacy, thus rendering such certificate liable to cancellation. In the case at bar, what is involved is a false statement concerning a candidates qualification for anoffice forwhich he filed the certificate of candidacy. This is a misrepresentation of a material fact justifying the cancellation of petitioners certificate of candidacy. The cancellation of petitioners certificate of candidacy in this case is thus fully justified.